Sentences with phrase «give judgment in court»

A judge may give judgment in court right after both sides have finished presenting their cases or will reserve judgement and give the decision later

Not exact matches

They lay down judgments which can be given full legal status if approved in national law courts.

The fact it is a «judgment» (like a court room) gives me the feeling we are there in the moment participating in our own verdict (we are not representless are we?).

National courts and authorities will have to exercise their own faculty of judgment, having regard to the case - law of the Court of Justice, to determine the typical reaction of the average consumer in a given case.»

The Supreme Court in a bid to give further interpretation to its May 5 judgment on the controversy regarding the voters» register, has directed the EC to furnish it with a «comprehensive» list of all persons who registered with the NHIS cards.

The court has given Asamoah Gyan an eight (8) day ultimatum after service of the writ to file an appearance or else face judgment in his absence.

I know since the court gave the markafi group judgment in the pdp case, the so called ADP will die a natural death.

He noted the Justices of the Supreme Court recognised the need for significant changes in our electoral process and therefore gave a road map in their various judgments during the 2012 Election Petition.

«I would like to assure all public spirited Ghanaians that should I be given the opportunity to examine the Judgment Debtor, Alfred Agbesi Woyome, in Court the good people of Ghana will hear and see the beneficiaries of the unconstitutional judgment debt in the NDC and this Government,» Mr Amidu stated in his application which he filed on November 10.

However Mr Mahama Haruna speaking to mynewsgh.com in his first interview after the judgment said he disagrees completely with the judgment and that it is not proper for the courts of Ghana to be giving damages to destroy the freedom of the press and of speech.

In giving her judgment in the case, Her Lordship Barbara Ackah - Yensu pointed out that: «I find both 2nd and 3rd defendants, particularly Catherine Afeku, not to be credible witness and they mounted the witness box to tell the Court a pack of lies, and it is for this reason that I preferred the evidence of plaintiff that she never saw the company's regulations»In giving her judgment in the case, Her Lordship Barbara Ackah - Yensu pointed out that: «I find both 2nd and 3rd defendants, particularly Catherine Afeku, not to be credible witness and they mounted the witness box to tell the Court a pack of lies, and it is for this reason that I preferred the evidence of plaintiff that she never saw the company's regulations»in the case, Her Lordship Barbara Ackah - Yensu pointed out that: «I find both 2nd and 3rd defendants, particularly Catherine Afeku, not to be credible witness and they mounted the witness box to tell the Court a pack of lies, and it is for this reason that I preferred the evidence of plaintiff that she never saw the company's regulations».

Even though the Appeal Court is well aware of the status of S. 140 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010, it, nevertheless, acted to the contrary, given its own observation in its judgment that: «Whether Section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act is extant or not, no advantage can be conferred on the Appellants by declaring the 1st Appellant as a winner on the grounds of his obtaining the second highest votes as elected.»

In a statement issued by Simeon Nwakaudu, Special Assistant to the Rivers State Governor on Electronic Media, Governor Wike said that the judgment of the Supreme Court validation of his election is a confirmation of the mandate freely given to him by the people of the state.

In explaining the judgment of the seven - member panel of Justices of the Supreme Court, the presiding Justice, Sophia Adinyira, said their decision was to enable the EC give hearing to all parties involved in the legal tussle over the qualification, due to the limited time left for the election to be helIn explaining the judgment of the seven - member panel of Justices of the Supreme Court, the presiding Justice, Sophia Adinyira, said their decision was to enable the EC give hearing to all parties involved in the legal tussle over the qualification, due to the limited time left for the election to be helin the legal tussle over the qualification, due to the limited time left for the election to be held.

The court gave the judgment in a case brought before it by the Electoral Commission, which said it disagreed with the ruling of the High Court in favour of Dr. Nduom, and wanted the Supreme Court to quash it, and also make a determination that will affect all other suits relating to the disqualificacourt gave the judgment in a case brought before it by the Electoral Commission, which said it disagreed with the ruling of the High Court in favour of Dr. Nduom, and wanted the Supreme Court to quash it, and also make a determination that will affect all other suits relating to the disqualificaCourt in favour of Dr. Nduom, and wanted the Supreme Court to quash it, and also make a determination that will affect all other suits relating to the disqualificaCourt to quash it, and also make a determination that will affect all other suits relating to the disqualification.

Kofi Adams is praying the court for an order for «an unconditional retraction and an unqualified apology for the said defamatory comments / broadcast / publication, doing so separately and in the Daily Graphic newspaper, and for same to be given equal prominence as the complained comments / broadcast / publication within 14 days from the day of judgment.»

In a judgment that sets a far - reaching constitutional precedent and upholds parliamentary sovereignty, the court ruled by a majority of eight justices to three that MPs and peers must give their consent before the government can trigger article 50 and formally initiate Brexit.

He appointed a motor park tout as Attorney general, an hardly educated street profligate as speaker now he wants to appoint an Oluwole - judge as chief judge who will give judgment in government house, have court sessions on Saturday and Sundays.

Indeed, in a 2012 English High Court judgment, Mr Justice Mitting endorsed the findings of my own investigation which discovered that a claim, published in the Lancet in February 1998 by Wakefield, Walker - Smith and others that «Investigations were approved by the Ethical Practices Committee of the Royal Free Hospital NHS Trust, and parents gave informed consent» was false.

The case — Houston Federation of Teachers et al. v. Houston ISD — was filed in 2014 and just yesterday, United States Magistrate Judge Stephen Wm. Smith denied in the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, the district's request for summary judgment given the plaintiffs» due process claims.

(2) signed by an individual, or his parent, to the effect that he has been denied admission to or not permitted to continue in attendance at a public college by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin, and the Attorney General believes the complaint is meritorious and certifies that the signer or signers of such complaint are unable, in his judgment, to initiate and maintain appropriate legal proceedings for relief and that the institution of an action will materially further the orderly achievement of desegregation in public education, the Attorney General is authorized, after giving notice of such complaint to the appropriate school board or college authority and after certifying that he is satisfied that such board or authority has had a reasonable time to adjust the conditions alleged in such complaint, to institute for or in the name of the United States a civil action in any appropriate district court of the United States against such parties and for such relief as may be appropriate, and such court shall have and shall exercise jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section, provided that nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance, or otherwise enlarge the existing power of the court to insure compliance with constitutional standards.

But giving up leads to defaulted loans, court judgments, and bankruptcy, which can leave your credit score in tatters and render you ineligible for a mortgage or car loan.

The thoughtful, detailed analysis and judgment of the proposed move by the federal government to create a national securities regulator shows how little improvement there really is likely to be for the individual investor in solving key problems: high fees for mutual funds, costly access to government of Canada securities, lack of fiduciary responsibility by the industry towards investors, inadequate civil court recourse against misbehaving financial firms, priority given to financial system protection over investor interests.

A judge will at least give you the chance to defend yourself in a court of law before passing judgment.

a) Disputes filed - 18 months b) Inquiries - 2 years c) Payment profile -5 years d) Information related to a consumers payment behavior such as slow payer, defaulted or absconded - 1 year e) Information relating to the action that a credit provider has taken against a consumer to enforce a debt such as handed over, legal action or write - off - 2 years f) Debt restructuring - Until a clearance certificate is given g) Civil court judgments - 5 years or until the court removes it h) Administration orders (orders to put a consumer under administration)- 10 years or until the court removes it i) Sequestrations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt judgments - 5 years or until the court removes it h) Administration orders (orders to put a consumer under administration)- 10 years or until the court removes it i) Sequestrations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt removes it h) Administration orders (orders to put a consumer under administration)- 10 years or until the court removes it i) Sequestrations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt removes it i) Sequestrations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt where the consumer is insolvent)- 10 years or until the court removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt removes it j) Liquidations (order given by the court where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Afcourt where the consumer is insolvent)- no time limit k) Court order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South AfCourt order removing a liquidation or sequestrations after all the debt was paid - 5 years l) Other information (information not covered above)- 2 years Other Useful Topics Learn how to dispute information on your credit report in South Africa.

As Lady Hale says (giving the judgment of the full court) in Re L and B (Children)[2013] UKSC 8, the starting point is: «[44]... if a judge were entitled to change his mind, a party would presumably be entitled to invite him to do so.

Thus the strike out provision of FPR 2010, r 4.4 (1) under which the case had proceeded in the Court of Appeal has to be construed without reference to «real prospects of success» test (as required for civil proceedings under CPR 1998 r 24.2); and FPR 2010 Practice Direction PD4A para 2.4 is «an unhelpful curiosity [in the absence of] a power in FPR 2010 to give summary judgment».

On the same date in Amsterdam, the Dutch District Court gave judgment in the present case.

A prohibition thus issued in Barcelona gave rise to a first ruling by the Court of Justice on the matter in the Elite Taxi judgment (C - 434 / 15) rendered last December 2017.

In an important judgment given the ageing prison population, Louis Browne from Exchange Chambers has secured an important judicial review success for the Ministry of Justice at the Royal Courts of Justice.

Turned towards the Italian government (and indirectly of course towards the Corte suprema di cassazione), the Court refutes the «same argument -LSB-...] put forward by the Italian government in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Bickel and Franz» which already then had been dismissed: There is a good reason to grant these rights to EU citizens, because it enables them to adequately exercise their rights of defence in proceedings (para 22).

The judgment in Taricco I is predominantly about the national courts» obligation to give full effect to Article 325 TFEU, if needs be by disapplying the rules of statutes of limitations periods.

On 1 March 2016 the Court of Justice of the European Union gave its judgment in the joined cases of Ibrahim Alo and Amira Osso, Cases C - 443 / 14 and C - 444 / 14, ruling that the EU's Qualification Directive does not sanction the imposition of restrictions of the freedom of movement for beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, and that such a limitation is not justifiable for reasons of territorial sharing of social assistance burdens, while at the same time leaving it up to the referring German Federal Administrative Court to decide whether the limitation can be justified for reasons of migration and integration policy.

In considering a motion to set to aside default judgment, the Court must consider the following factors: (1) whether the motion to set aside the default judgment was brought without delay after the moving party learned of the default judgment; (2) whether the circumstances giving rise to the default judgment have been adequately explained; and (3) whether the moving party has an... Read More

R (MILLER) V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR EXITING THE EUROPEAN UNION In this briefing, Tom Leary considers the Divisional Court's recent Brexit judgment on the government's power to give notice under Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to cease membership of the EU The prerogative powers The prerogative powers are the residual...

They also argued that the Court was in a position to give summary judgment against the Claimants based on witness evidence from officials in the UK companies who said that their companies had not been involved in any cartel behaviour.

In addition to requiring a petition for revival be filed with the court, the petitioner must also give personal notice to the parties involved «to prevent surprise on the party owing the dormant judgment.»

The very question posed for Judge Sumner sitting in Wandsworth County Court in Miss Sam (Sales) Ltd v River Island Clothing Co Ltd where he gave judgment on 17 February 1994 which is not being appealed.

Returning to this morning's decision, in Canadian National Railway Co. v. McKercher LLP, which we gave the headline for in an earlier post, I thought it would be helpful to boil down the judgment, into twelve paragraphs, largely using the court's own words:

In its judgment the court said the existence of the right of appeal given by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 20 and the right to receive interest on arrears in prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSIn its judgment the court said the existence of the right of appeal given by the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991), s 20 and the right to receive interest on arrears in prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSin prescribed circumstances given by s 41, when taken in conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSin conjunction with the right to seek judicial review of failures to collect or enforce arrears of maintenance, means CSA 1991 provides the parent with care with substantial protection against incompetence on the part of the CSA.

In the procedure before the CJEU, Belgium held that — given the judgments of the Constitutional Court — the exclusion should be deemed never to have been part of the Belgian legal order.

Before taking new matters into account based on statistics which have not been considered in the judgment under appeal, the adversarial process requires that the court ensure that the parties are given an opportunity to deal with the new information by making further submissions, oral or written, and allowing, if requested, fresh material in response.

Moreover, I think it is noteworthy that the Court dismissed the reference to the ECHR so easily in the first part of the judgment, but did give effect to the Charter.

At the same time, the AG's position that the GC was completely wrong (and thus that the Court should have set aside the whole judgment of the GC) is not fully coherent: even if the assessment will ultimately be based on the new instrument, in order to give effect to the transitional provision of art. 8 (3)(d) it is still necessary to assess the case according to the older instrument, and thus the Court was indeed correct in upholding that part of the GC's judgment.

The court decided this evidence could not properly be left to a jury and gave a summary judgment in favour of the defendants.

In a case concerning an alleged discrimanatory pension scheme in the Czech republic that resulted from the dissolvation of Czechoslovakia, it held that the Court in its judgment in Case C - 399 / 09 Landtová acted ultra vires and subsequently gave Czech national law precedence over EU laIn a case concerning an alleged discrimanatory pension scheme in the Czech republic that resulted from the dissolvation of Czechoslovakia, it held that the Court in its judgment in Case C - 399 / 09 Landtová acted ultra vires and subsequently gave Czech national law precedence over EU lain the Czech republic that resulted from the dissolvation of Czechoslovakia, it held that the Court in its judgment in Case C - 399 / 09 Landtová acted ultra vires and subsequently gave Czech national law precedence over EU lain its judgment in Case C - 399 / 09 Landtová acted ultra vires and subsequently gave Czech national law precedence over EU lain Case C - 399 / 09 Landtová acted ultra vires and subsequently gave Czech national law precedence over EU law.

In the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Mance (as he then was) gave the lead judgment in which a detailed review of case law concerning judgments rendered in private and shrouded by a requirement of non-publication were considereIn the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Mance (as he then was) gave the lead judgment in which a detailed review of case law concerning judgments rendered in private and shrouded by a requirement of non-publication were considerein which a detailed review of case law concerning judgments rendered in private and shrouded by a requirement of non-publication were considerein private and shrouded by a requirement of non-publication were considered.

Sir Andrew Morritt, who gave the only reasoned judgment in the Court of Appeal, confirmed that it is not possible for a planning authority to authorise a nuisance, although the effect of a planning permission may be to alter the character of a neighbourhood for the purposes of assessing the question of nuisance.

The Supreme Court of Canada in the seminal Morguard decision held that the courts in one province should give full faith and credit to judgments given by a court in another province or territory so long as that court has properly exercised jurisdiction in the acCourt of Canada in the seminal Morguard decision held that the courts in one province should give full faith and credit to judgments given by a court in another province or territory so long as that court has properly exercised jurisdiction in the accourt in another province or territory so long as that court has properly exercised jurisdiction in the accourt has properly exercised jurisdiction in the action.

Where a creditor's application with notice to register a judgment in Alberta is successful, the judgment is of the same force and effect as if as if it had been a judgment given originally in the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench on the date of the registration and is valid for ten years from that date.